C-238.2 Differentiation by extension
Behavioral entities can differentiate by extension … and have, at first of the body, then of Move and/or Mind functionalities within those body extensions. At some risk: of vulnerability to attack and of weakness in capacity and/or capability (e.g., “I went out too far” [Hemingway’s Old Man and the Sea]). But with advantages, such as increased brain capacity.
Humans are remarkable as extensions. Not exactly exemplary, however. Imperfect as compositions. Still, humans offer the best indications of the Expansion’s and S-universe’s phenomena and principles. We should not overlook the fact, however, that plants too make roots, extending for functionality.
Human bodies are born equipped for extension, to grow muscles and bones. Not so much for extension by steps, however. In some capacities, to be sure, but for capabilities only, and limited, as they are fed a menu of mettle ore, of conceptual instances, of cultural ways – of B-ness and B-speak – do their steps grow. And nowhere near the potential of the human condition, given the still dormant forces available from the Expansion and the S-universe.
Can we say with any assurance that we have managed to exercise more than a miniscule of human potential … say about 2 or 3 percent of it? How many steps are wasted?
The Expansion enables extension. But at a cost. As we have seen, any added functionality adds to needed functionality … and considerable complexity and size given the operating systems that we have. (One reason why control systems have come to dominate operating systems. See contemporary China.) The size aspect of an extension is made apparent in the measure of compositional gappiness (the number of relationships for a set: of N bodies, steps or functionalities: G= N[N-1] / 2).
“Reach” as an R-word expresses the importance of extension as a capability pertinent to needed functionality. As important to Mind as to Move. And understandable too, given the Expansion’s discontinuity of both body and step (“supergappiness”).
Communication technologies, both tool and procedural, extend step reach in the S-universe and the Expansion. The B-universe “less action at a distance” becomes less of a constraint to difference making – i.e., to differentiation.
The molecular step offers the possibility of greater reach, of stronger extended steps, through mettle alloying and CEM development … what is needed for community as a selves extension of the individual self.* An extension that demands dealing with gappiness (e.g., mass media technology).
B-speak language (WISA) is technologically interesting in its extension from names to words to sentences. Logic, as technology, bears on the integrity and strength of the (extended) sentence. It is not, however, the sole criterion for the step strength. B-speak concepts rot away sentence – i.e., extension -- cores.
With extensions, outcomes play an important role, that of BE survival.** A variety of experimental extensions met their fate during the period encased in the Burgess Shale. “Growth” takes its chances. Witness the dinosaurs.
***
* “Community” is here a theoretical construct, pertaining to needed functionality that requires more than individual – or aggregate individual – effort. It is not the B-ness concept that comprises instances of communities. “Community” is best seen too as a theoretical construct, as a self, as an extension of the individuals’ selves, in response to needed functionality. Indeed: Why not “Self” as an R-word? It’s about becoming. (See “Know thy selves.”)
** While step outcomes may be anathema to evolutionists (intrusive comments of “survival of the fittest”), they are essential to development (e.g., “survival of the fittingest”). But just not help enough. Some capability up front in making the step is needed (Eve’s lament). Some “as we go” capability too. (See “Feel”: C-245.)
In light of the very useful Search feature now available, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2021 R. F. Carter
Humans are remarkable as extensions. Not exactly exemplary, however. Imperfect as compositions. Still, humans offer the best indications of the Expansion’s and S-universe’s phenomena and principles. We should not overlook the fact, however, that plants too make roots, extending for functionality.
Human bodies are born equipped for extension, to grow muscles and bones. Not so much for extension by steps, however. In some capacities, to be sure, but for capabilities only, and limited, as they are fed a menu of mettle ore, of conceptual instances, of cultural ways – of B-ness and B-speak – do their steps grow. And nowhere near the potential of the human condition, given the still dormant forces available from the Expansion and the S-universe.
Can we say with any assurance that we have managed to exercise more than a miniscule of human potential … say about 2 or 3 percent of it? How many steps are wasted?
The Expansion enables extension. But at a cost. As we have seen, any added functionality adds to needed functionality … and considerable complexity and size given the operating systems that we have. (One reason why control systems have come to dominate operating systems. See contemporary China.) The size aspect of an extension is made apparent in the measure of compositional gappiness (the number of relationships for a set: of N bodies, steps or functionalities: G= N[N-1] / 2).
“Reach” as an R-word expresses the importance of extension as a capability pertinent to needed functionality. As important to Mind as to Move. And understandable too, given the Expansion’s discontinuity of both body and step (“supergappiness”).
Communication technologies, both tool and procedural, extend step reach in the S-universe and the Expansion. The B-universe “less action at a distance” becomes less of a constraint to difference making – i.e., to differentiation.
The molecular step offers the possibility of greater reach, of stronger extended steps, through mettle alloying and CEM development … what is needed for community as a selves extension of the individual self.* An extension that demands dealing with gappiness (e.g., mass media technology).
B-speak language (WISA) is technologically interesting in its extension from names to words to sentences. Logic, as technology, bears on the integrity and strength of the (extended) sentence. It is not, however, the sole criterion for the step strength. B-speak concepts rot away sentence – i.e., extension -- cores.
With extensions, outcomes play an important role, that of BE survival.** A variety of experimental extensions met their fate during the period encased in the Burgess Shale. “Growth” takes its chances. Witness the dinosaurs.
* “Community” is here a theoretical construct, pertaining to needed functionality that requires more than individual – or aggregate individual – effort. It is not the B-ness concept that comprises instances of communities. “Community” is best seen too as a theoretical construct, as a self, as an extension of the individuals’ selves, in response to needed functionality. Indeed: Why not “Self” as an R-word? It’s about becoming. (See “Know thy selves.”)
** While step outcomes may be anathema to evolutionists (intrusive comments of “survival of the fittest”), they are essential to development (e.g., “survival of the fittingest”). But just not help enough. Some capability up front in making the step is needed (Eve’s lament). Some “as we go” capability too. (See “Feel”: C-245.)
In light of the very useful Search feature now available, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2021 R. F. Carter
S